This was my take on it. It could be that literally everyone on the leadership team was terrified into conformity, but I find that hard to believe, and that instead it was more of an inner-sanctum that held some admiration for the leader who let them in.
Talking privately to a bully rarely works. And the the one bully wasn't really the problem here. It was a social system that not only ignored his bullying but actively supported it. The real audience here is the broader community, which now has to decide what they want to do about the problem Butterick has been generous enough to explain in detail.
Social stuff can be amazingly hard to sort out sometimes.
One of the benefits of the internet is that text makes it easier to "not raise your voice" so to speak. People who trigger each other in person and yadda may not know how to get past that more directly.
This is not a justification for anything. I hope they manage to build bridges and all that. This is the first I've personally seen this particular dispute.
> One of the benefits of the internet is that text makes it easier to "not raise your voice" so to speak. People who trigger each other in person and yadda may not know how to get past that more directly.
I'd say it's generally the other way round. Twitter is infamous for bringing out the worst in people, resulting in many unproductive interactions. I've heard the comparison to road rage. When the human element is somewhat removed, as with a vehicle or Twitter, the general tendency seems to be that we're quicker to anger.
It depends heavily on the particular Internet forum though, clearly. HackerNews is one of the obvious examples of getting it right and producing good conversations.
My comment was an observation about this specific case of two people apparently actively trying to put their differences asides, build bridges, etc. in the face of a history of personal friction IRL.
It shouldn't be interpreted as somehow implying that use of the internet is a magic cure all for all human character deficits.
There is an adult way to escalate problems which is to first speak privately with the person in question to address the problem or correct the misunderstanding. If that fails, you could speak with people in the relevant social circle shared with Matthias. Dragging your problem into the public square is only something you do if those fail AND there are sufficiently good reasons to make it public.
Just to be clear: I am not defending or criticizing Matthias one way or another. I am speaking purely about process. This is a process that should be observed equally by those in positions of leadership toward those whom they serve in that role as well as the later toward the former. That is, both Matthias and Matthew.
This is one way to handle the problem, but certainly not the only way, and not a way that is blessed as "the mature solution". There are a variety of legtimate reasons not try to speak first privately to Matthias. Butterick gets at one of them in his essay, namely that allowing bullies to keep their bullying private has the effect of isolating other victims and preventing more coherent responses to it by a group.
It sounds like you don't have much experience dealing with abusers. I'd suggest reading, "Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men". Abusers will use private approaches like that as another opportunity to berate and dominate. Indeed, if you read the addenda to Butterick's piece, you'll see that Felleisen approached him privately and with "a strange mix of concilliation and hostility". That is also typical of abusers.
Your "adult" approach only works if the other person is also behaving as an "adult". Felleisen gave no indication to Butterick that he was capable of working at that level. If Felleisen wanted feedback, he could have signaled that.
Further, in the context of a project like this, bringing the behavior up to the people running it is generally a good place to start. The behaviors acceptable in a community are determined by the community. What Butterick learned was that abuse from Felleisen was considered normal and acceptable, and that the community would protect Felleisin over Butterick. In that circumstance, there's little point to approaching the abusive person because they already know they can keep doing what they want.
Instead of "just asking questions," then using that to make commentary that doesn't make sense because you don't know what's happening, try becoming familiar with the situation
If you expect people to do things they don't feel comfortable doing, you will repeatedly be disappointed. If you are depending on coworkers to go outside their comfort zone, you will lose coworkers (and probably feel they are undependable). Even if you are right and this person is "too sensitive" in some way, they were also an important contributor who has left a project where they no longer felt comfortable. No one owes it to any of us to "put up" with how we treat them.
Like, maybe a team that resolves conflict this was would really work more efficiently! But it will certainly push out anyone who isn't comfortable with that kind of interaction, while the efficiency gains seem more uncertain.
> No one owes it to any of us to "put up" with how we treat them.
No, however we do owe it to ourselves to learn better how to push back on difficult people. It’s a form of self defense because difficult people, or people having a bad day and lashing out, are not going away.
> No, however we do owe it to ourselves to learn better how to push back on difficult people. It’s a form of self defense because difficult people, or people having a bad day and lashing out, are not going away.
I think this is a key word, though—we owe it to ourselves. We can say "boy, I did a poor job confronting that bully today." But no-one else owes it to us; we are, I think, unjustified in saying, "boy, Matthew did a poor job confronting that bully today", or at least in passing any judgment if that is our belief.
It's kind of like defensive driving. No I shouldn't have to take all these precautions because others should be following the road rules... but very often they don't. If you're in a crash and you're "in the right", you're still in a crash (as my last concussion can attest to...).
Likewise if someone is being a prick to you, sometimes you've just gotta be the bigger prick right back. No you shouldn't have to be, people should always be nice and respectful... but they're not. Most people back off, and if they don't - you've learned the valuable lesson that the person is beyond reason and you can wash your hands of it right then and there.
There are very real cultural differences and taboos against questioning and pushing back against authority. What one culture may view as normal and expected process in improvement, another is horrified and ashamed to consider. Do not assume just because you've grown up or grown accustomed to it that it's 'normal' or practiced everywhere. This is perhaps one of the biggest frictions I see in teams that are full of folks from different cultures and backgrounds.
That's my experience too. I'm Hungarian and worked or collaborated with people from a handful of nations (Japan, Korea, Tamil Nadu (India), Mumbai (India), Ukraine, Russia, Portugal, Poland, Guandong (China), Hong Kong, USA, Brazil, Nepal, Pakistan, Switzerland, France, Austria, UK, Greece, Serbia, Montenegro, South Africa, Australia, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Netherlands, Canada), in person, just over the past ~13 years. Before that, I was only exposed to Hungarian work culture for the first 30 years of my life, so that was my base-line.
Some of the differences in attitude towards work, co-workers and authority truly triggered rage in me. Then someone suggested that the reason for these differences are cultural, hence very deeply rooted and I can't expect to change them quickly or at all. For that reason, I should be the one who adapts, since now I understand the situation and I care to solve the problem.
I kinda agree with this assessment, but if I can put this effort in to even out cultural differences, so as the other party can, just have to make them aware of this discovery and try converge multiple times, since our goal is to work together.
There is a lot more to say, but that's how far I have the time to go now :)
Did you read the original blog post? They clearly mention at the end they posted it because they were repeatedly asked why they disengaged from the Racket community:
"Why mention any of this now? Two reasons.
Over the last year, friends in the Racket community have asked me why I’ve reduced my involvement. Absent anything else, they assume the most obvious reason: that I’m bored or frustrated with Racket as a language. That I’ve moved on to other things.
Not true. On the contrary, it seems important to reassert: I like almost everything about Racket. It’s still my favorite programming environment. I use it almost every day. I wish I could still contribute the way I did before. But I can’t subject myself to more of the same. In that sense, it feels more like exile than withdrawal.
I’ve been involved with FOSS projects for nearly 25 years. A project that depends on free contributions of time & effort—as every FOSS project does—needs to be an appealing place for others to make gifts of their time. Sure, in any community of opinionated humans, occasional frictions and disagreements are natural. But Felleisen’s outrageous hostility went far beyond anything I’d experienced."
Also this main issue occurred three years ago. It is very odd to assume that someone decided to just sit on an issue for three years and then suddenly gotcha throw it out of nowhere.
This person was bullied out of the Racket community. They quietly left rather than try to fight against aggressive personalities. That's the real story here, and what happens in 99% of similar incidents.
> Of course, I did push back on Felleisen. But there was a limit to how hard I could push. Again—I was merely a guest. In the moment, I was struggling mostly to keep my emotions in check. I did assure him that his fears about my future performance were unfounded.
I'm not sure I would classify that as "talking plainly." Words like that would put anybody on the defensive, and being on the defensive does not make people receptive to positive change.
Matthew was an invited guest speaker, he could not push back to such an extent without putting those arrangements at risk. This of course made it more important for Fellesein to moderate his behavior in that context; he should have been aware that this meant a potential source of feedback was missing.
At the beginning: "No facts were disputed. The incidents were numerous, happening over a period of years. They were always witnessed by others on the Racket core team. For that reason, there’s no need to enumerate the details now. Though I will give one example as illustration"
If there was no need to enumerate details, why did he write an additional 12 pages in a blog post?
This whole incident, whatever it was or is, seems like two personalities with egos that won't stop. That's not something I care about.